Second Amendment is Homeland Security: graduate paper

Just got an email from Christy Allen, decided to look up her past writings. I suggested THR and TFL to her as additional sources of information and opinions. If you have comments on the above article or any helpful insights for her PhD Thesis, entitled “Living the Second Amendment: An Ethnography of Gun Rights Activism”, this would be a good venue to do so. If Ms. Allen prefers to hold more detailed discussions by email, she can indicate so. I will send the thread link to her.

Hmmm... I think she missed the link between expectations of gun rights activists and the reluctance to criticize. Withe AWB sunset on the horizon, I bet a lot of people were willing to line up behind GWB who were probably a little uneasy about his policies.

If she attended the same conferences now, I wonder if she wouldn't see a lot more unease in line with what she holds to be the traditional narrative?

Molon Labe

January 24, 2006, 02:47 PM

Civilian gun ownership is central to their narrative of American heroism, not merely as a frontier tool or deterrent against crime but also as a potent check against a tyrannical government. They claim justification in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.Not me.

"The Second Amendment: The Original Homeland Security."The Constitution was ratified in 1791. So the minutemen of 1775 would disagree with this statement.

The Revolutionary War really began when the colonials were stripped of their muskets.This is not 100% true. Is she referring to Concord? If so, the Red Coats were primarily out to confiscate the militias' powder & weapons, not weapons from the general populous.

Oleg Volk

January 24, 2006, 05:38 PM

Keep in mind that this is an old paper. I provided it for reference. THe author has since doen more research and is working on a new thesis.

Danus ex

January 24, 2006, 11:07 PM

Let her know that if she wants to talk to or be reviewed by an American grad student who studies rhetoric, I am available.

As for the article, it's good to see somebody write something, but if I were in charge of a journal and this was submitted to me, I'd probably reject it. Allen's claims tend to make a bigger bridge than her evidence can support. She needs to be brutally clear defining the scope of this article--this is an explanation that fits a certain small group or small percentage of American gun owners. Just how many gun owners are NRA members or convention-goers? Certainly less than half, probably less than twenty-five percent. Is this evaluating activist rhetoric's effect on the activists themselves or evaluating its effect on the US population? I'm concerned that her sample is biased toward pro-gun activists and not the 'everyone else' the second amendment also serves.

And if the scope is to be this narrow, what's the utility of this investigation? The conclusion it seems to highlight is the association between heroic rhetoric (whether pro- or anti-government) and pro-gun activism. So why no discussion on the raw nature of activism, groups of activists, or individual activists themselves? (In other words, why not apply some sociological concepts?) What would make pro-gun activists 'susceptible' to heroic rhetoric? How do they reciprocate and serve that heroic tradition? It seems like such a chickeny-eggy issue that I hope her dissertation explores. Big questions facing any research are "so what?" and "now what?" and I'd prefer that any scholarship The High Road touches can withstand said questions.

xd9fan

January 24, 2006, 11:20 PM

After reading this the second time I do have some reservations. I can see mostly GOP gunowners (who are very promilitary/pro-war on terror) could fall into the trap of doing the Govt's biddings because the current war on terror/ its for your security umbrella has clouded thier good judgement as far as the Bill of Rights are concerned.

I take the position that if terrorism is a grassroots operation then it needs to be fought by every american at the grassroots level as well. The Bush Administration or any form of U.S. Govt does not even consider My help in protecting my country....my workplace...my street as a gun owner or a CC holder. (this was not the case in WWII)

Frist and foremost, Gunowners MUST remember that the Bill of Rights are anti Govt and must be protected first.

Kodiaz

January 24, 2006, 11:48 PM

+1 XD9fan

BFWE

January 24, 2006, 11:56 PM

It must ALWAYS be remembered that our rights DO NOT originate with either the Constitution of the United States or the Bill of Right. Nor do are they different from those of persons living in any other nation on the face of the earth. Our rights come from the simple fact that we are human. They exist regardless of whether they are recognized or not.

A goverments legitamacy is a function of its attitude towards these "inalienable human rights". This seems to be a problem with people studying "rights" especially with regard to the US Constitution/Bill of Rights. The author of this piece needs to rethink the work.

(Please forgive my spelling errors... kind of tired from work today.)

thorn726

January 25, 2006, 05:37 PM

this "homeland security" . it kinda goes with this in a way.
very odd- it's also shirt some guys here in Berkeley make and sell=

i think it is a little strange that the Native Americans are using rifles they would obviously have gotten from the folks they were protecting themselves from but anyway
heres a link to photo in case it wont host thru
http://www.uwm.edu/Course/416-350/chapter03/homeland%20security.jpg
http://www.uwm.edu/Course/416-350/chapter03/homeland%20security.jpg